Author Topic: Thoughts in remembrance of 911 (Read 43283 times)

daddydave · « **Reply #25 on:** September 12, 2011, 05:05 AM »

If your spouse was killed instantly in the 9/11 attacks you get 2 million dollars from the government fund, a national memorial and day of morning, and a huge national support system. If your spouse is raped and tortured and murdered by a serial killer you get nothing. I just don't get that.
-mouser (September 10, 2011, 01:26 PM)

I remember hearing the wife on a 9/11 victim insisting that she was entitled to the $2 million because it was her "blood money". This made me angry, it wasn't the taxpayers who killed her husband. After 10 years, it is probably a good day for me to forgive her and assume if was a temporary fit of brainlessness like we all have. So I will.

Renegade · « **Reply #26 on:** September 12, 2011, 05:23 AM »

I'm not trying to be heartless -- I'm not begrudging anyone or trying to take away anyone's pain. It just seems like yet another example of how reactions to this event have not been rational or proportionate given all of the other cases of death and suffering, both inside and outside of the US.
-mouser (September 10, 2011, 01:26 PM)

+60,000,000

daddydave · « **Reply #27 on:** September 12, 2011, 11:57 AM »

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers." Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan, quoting from an Islamic poem.

And I seem to recall this from a very popular Christian hymn:

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
   with the cross of Jesus going on before.
   Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
   forward into battle see his banners go!
-app103 (September 10, 2011, 09:18 AM)

I don't know about the original reference, but I do know that this is being taken out of context. It's not meant literally, but in terms of spiritual combat.
-wraith808 (September 10, 2011, 09:54 PM)

~~I think that was kind of App's point.~~ After all, a line from a poem must have had a context as well, right?

daddydave · « **Reply #28 on:** September 12, 2011, 12:09 PM »

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers." Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan, quoting from an Islamic poem.

And I seem to recall this from a very popular Christian hymn:

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
   with the cross of Jesus going on before.
   Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
   forward into battle see his banners go!
-app103 (September 10, 2011, 09:18 AM)

I don't know about the original reference, but I do know that this is being taken out of context. It's not meant literally, but in terms of spiritual combat.
-wraith808 (September 10, 2011, 09:54 PM)

I think that was kind of App's point. After all, a line from a poem must have had a context as well, right?
-daddydave (September 12, 2011, 11:57 AM)

I said that without actually knowing the context, kind of talking out of my hat, but it turns out I was more right about the context than I imagined.

Got lucky that time.

wraith808 · « **Reply #29 on:** September 12, 2011, 01:19 PM »

It doesn't appear from that link that they are similar, but maybe I'm reading it wrong?

daddydave · « **Reply #30 on:** September 12, 2011, 01:30 PM »

It doesn't appear from that link that they are similar, but maybe I'm reading it wrong?
-wraith808 (September 12, 2011, 01:19 PM)

That's my fault for not citing the relevant portion.

Erdoğan was elected Mayor of Istanbul in the local elections of 27 March 1994. He was banned from office and sentenced to a prison term for reciting text (""The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers....") from a poem during a public address in the province of Siirt on 12 December 1997. The poem was allegedly quoted from a book published by a state enterprise and one that had been recommended to teachers by the Ministry of Education, but the lines recited do not appear in the original poem.[1][2][3]

So the politician actually spent time in jail for quoting that poem, ~~or rather, making up the quote to that poem.~~ repeating part of the poem that apparently was not in the original. This makes sense in light of the fact that Turkey, despite being a majority-Muslim state, is pretty vigilant about keeping religion out of politics. In this case, it raises free speech concerns, but you can't have everything.

But now, having read it more carefully, I'm curious if somehow he got away with reciting it again after he became prime minister. So I may not be completely right. I've probably gone too far off topic though, so I'll shut up for this thread and suggest a new thread if needed.

wraith808 · « **Reply #31 on:** September 12, 2011, 02:15 PM »

And it seems that he was citing something that wasn't there in order to incite violence? At least from the charges... so I don't think they're really similar.

IainB · « **Reply #32 on:** September 14, 2011, 03:19 AM »

app103, wraith808, and daddydave: You were joking by making the separate comments you did, above, re the quote about "The mosques are our barracks...etc." - right?
You had me confuzzled at first, but then I saw the humour.

daddydave · « **Reply #33 on:** September 14, 2011, 04:56 AM »

And it seems that he was citing something that wasn't there in order to incite violence? At least from the charges... so I don't think they're really similar.
-wraith808 (September 12, 2011, 02:15 PM)

I'll take one last stab at this. I'm simply agreeing with app that citing a line from a poem which is loosely associated with a religion is a very poor basis for disallowing the building of a structure by members of that religion. Beyond that, I don't care, or it's a choice of either declaring it a self evident truth or writing a 10 page essay, and I don't have time for it, nor am I as eloquent as app.

[unnecessary comment where I utterly failed to clarify my point of view, deleted by author]

cmpm · « **Reply #34 on:** September 14, 2011, 08:34 AM »

i think this fits here in this thread.

http://www.youtube.c.../watch?v=eMla61cOMtc

wraith808 · « **Reply #35 on:** September 14, 2011, 09:34 AM »

I'll take one last stab at this. I'm simply agreeing with app that citing a line from a poem which is loosely associated with a religion is a very poor basis for disallowing the building of a structure by members of that religion. Beyond that, I don't care, or it's a choice of either declaring it a self evident truth or writing a 10 page essay, and I don't have time for it, nor am I as eloquent as app.
-daddydave (September 14, 2011, 04:56 AM)

I didn't get that from her post. Which is why I posted the other- my understanding might be wrong. And with the other (unneeded?) comment on this exchange, I'll withdraw from the conversation.

daddydave · « **Reply #36 on:** September 14, 2011, 12:16 PM »

my understanding might be wrong
-wraith808 (September 14, 2011, 09:34 AM)

Mine might be as well. I'm sorry for any confusion I've added. Please don't take offense at anything I've said, I often see connections that to other people aren't really there.

wraith808 · « **Reply #37 on:** September 14, 2011, 01:25 PM »

my understanding might be wrong
-wraith808 (September 14, 2011, 09:34 AM)

Mine might be as well. I'm sorry for any confusion I've added. Please don't take offense at anything I've said, I often see connections that to other people aren't really there.
-daddydave (September 14, 2011, 12:16 PM)

Oh, not your comment. I do appreciate the perspective that you gave- it made me think about the fact that my understanding of the original post might indeed have been incorrect.

JavaJones · « **Reply #38 on:** September 14, 2011, 02:44 PM »

I just want to say that I read 40hz's post essentially nodding my head in agreement, but steeladept - while not disagreeing with what he wrote - does answer some questions I've also had. Why are the thousands of deaths a year that are a "routine part of life" treated differently than terrorism. I think steeladept gives a partial answer, which I'm appreciative of.

I still don't think the reaction is justified by that, but it's useful to see a clear distinction. In one case - that of the deaths that happen more regularly from every-day actions - there is usually not someone to blame (the driver of the other car maybe, but sometimes neither survives, and it's very seldom malicious). In the other case - that of terrorism - there are not only individuals to blame, but also usually ideology, even race, or other groupings you can use to target those responsible or those who directed, motivated, or simply agreed with them. Again it doesn't make it right, but at least it makes a bit more sense.

To me the most important thing is that those who died on 9/11 are honored and remembered in positive ways.

- Oshyan

IainB · « **Reply #39 on:** September 14, 2011, 04:51 PM »

@cmpm:

i think this fits here in this thread.

http://www.youtube.c.../watch?v=eMla61cOMtc
-cmpm (September 14, 2011, 08:34 AM)

Wow. That trailer looks like it could be a seriously interesting film. It puts forward a theory as a basis for a (for me) new perspective on our killing of each other. Seems to dovetail in here perfectly. Thankyou.

wraith808 · « **Reply #40 on:** September 14, 2011, 05:00 PM »

To me the most important thing is that those who died on 9/11 are honored and remembered in positive ways.
-JavaJones (September 14, 2011, 02:44 PM)

Agreed, with emphasis put on the positive by me above. There are two types of tributes in my opinion/experience- constructive remembrances and the equivalent of pyres. I hope that we're to the point where we can be constructive in our remembrances.

JavaJones · « **Reply #41 on:** September 14, 2011, 06:06 PM »

Agreed wraith, that was the subtext in my statement and that simple word in particular.

- Oshyan

IainB · « **Reply #42 on:** September 16, 2011, 08:16 PM »

Again, in memory of 911, I just saw this excellent summary of the post-911 retribution and achievements in changing world order, by the US, over the last decade: Afterburner with Bill Whittle: What We Did Right

This video clip kind of says it all about the crimes of 911 by those devout Muslim terrorists of Al-Queda's, and the punishment meted out to Al-Queda and others of a like ideology - but at the further cost of thousands of American soldiers' lives.
I guess what the video does not address is the "residual issue" of the 1,400-year old religio-political ideology of Islam which, in the terrorists' own minds would have justified their wholesale murder of all those innocent infidels, and on which the hegemonic objective idea of an Islamic world Caliphate (mentioned in the video clip) is founded.

In his blog , Robert A. Hall (who is a former Massachusetts state senator and U.S. Marine Corps veteran) makes the point in the post I'm Tired:

I’m tired of being told that Islam is a “Religion of Peace,” when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family “honor;” of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren’t “believers;” of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for “adultery;” of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur’an and Shari’a law tells them to.

Incidentally, and on a separate and lighter note about ideology, I noticed that his blog has a link to an amusing Hitler spoof of "Attackwatch": Hitler Discovers ATTACKWATCH is a Joke!

cmpm · « **Reply #43 on:** September 17, 2011, 05:45 PM »

@ IainB

Thanks for responding to and acknowledging that trailer.

I have more on the subjects, but holding back cause this is not the site for it.
There is a great ignorance of the human soul, which is masculine and feminine in each of us.
The masculine will always be dominate, but it has to, for sanity's sake allow the feminine to be heard and active.
I'm not talking about sexual choices, but the real forces within each soul.

Understanding/knowledge (masculine) and wisdom (feminine) must meet within to have peace.
Here is a misunderstood symbol of a soul, and all souls.
The serpents are masculine and feminine with the rest symbolic of spirit.
You might recognize it as the symbol of the medical profession, healing.

app103 · « **Reply #44 on:** September 18, 2011, 07:54 AM »

You might recognize it as the symbol of the medical profession, healing.
-cmpm (September 17, 2011, 05:45 PM)

That's the Caduceus of Mercury, frequently mistaken as the symbol of medicine. It actually represents merchants, gamblers, and thieves and is the symbol of commerce and negotiation. Any doctor that displays this symbol is either in it solely for the money or doesn't know the symbols of his own profession.

The Rod of Asclepius is the symbol of the medical profession, a single snake wrapped around a staff, with no wings, as depicted in the flag of the World Health Organization:

Thoughts in remembrance of 911

The EMS Star of Life:

Star_of_life2.svg.png

And the American Medical Association (old & new logo):

Thoughts in remembrance of 911

cmpm · « **Reply #45 on:** September 18, 2011, 09:57 AM »

Yes, in mythology and modern times, you are correct.
But it began with the staff of Moses, and corrupted over time.

This is way off topic I guess.....so I think I'm done with it.
No offense intended.

IainB · « **Reply #46 on:** September 19, 2011, 07:08 AM »

@cmpm: That looks rather interesting. Sounds like ancient philosophy. There is potentially a lot to be learned from ancient philosophy - e.g. Ahamkara.

As regards the emblematic two-snake (the Caduceus) versus the one-snake (rod of Asclepius) debate offerred by @app103, you did say (my emphasis):

Here is a misunderstood symbol of a soul, and all souls.
The serpents are masculine and feminine with the rest symbolic of spirit.
You might recognize it as the symbol of the medical profession, healing.

I did indeed recognise it as a symbol of medicine/healing - e.g., as used to designate the several corps of the Army Medical Department of the U.S. Army (AMEDD) - who I suspect may need to be told that they are using the "wrong" emblem.
However, I am also used to seeing the rod of Asclepius as the symbol of the medical profession/healing - from when I was working on a WHO-related project regarding the definition of Z59.5 (abject poverty) in 1994/5. Then too, the Caduceus was in use/misuse as it is today - so it's nothing new.

I blame all such misunderstandings on the Americans anyway, who have a well-documented history of corrupting standards for their own mysterious and peculiar purposes - e.g., gallons, and especially the use of English - The Decline of the English Department

"...Let's call the whole thing off."

Actually, come to think of it, there is another "emblematic" modern-day confusion - the middle digit (second finger) of one hand pointing upwards and facing outwards (in America), and the first and second fingers pointing upwards in a "V"and facing outwards (in England). Though they look quite different, they apparently mean much the same impolite thing.

app103 · « **Reply #47 on:** September 20, 2011, 12:16 AM »

I did indeed recognise it as a symbol of medicine/healing - e.g., as used to designate the several corps of the Army Medical Department of the U.S. Army (AMEDD) - who I suspect may need to be told that they are using the "wrong" emblem.
-IainB (September 19, 2011, 07:08 AM)

While it was used by medical personnel, it wasn't meant to be a medical symbol.

Hoff was far too scholarly and intelligent a man to commit the blunder of 'confusing' the caduceus with the serpent staff of Aesculapius. The sign of Mercury was deliberately adopted, as I have heard him state, because it was the emblem of the merchant and hence the emblem of the noncombatant. In junctures when it was necessary for a vessel to proclaim its nature, it was customary for a merchant vessel to indicate its noncombatant status by flying a flag which bore the emblem of Mercury, the God of the Merchant. The caduceus, in our use of it, is not distinctively the emblem of the physician, but the emblem of the whole Medical Department. The enlisted men of the medical department outnumber the physicians of that department. Besides the ambulance wagons, many vehicles are employed in field service in war which are not distinctively medical, but which are used for medical purposes. Both the enlisted men and the vehicles of the department (not to mention many other objects), should bear some sign of neutralization for protection. It seemed to Colonel Hoff and to the board that the Geneva cross, which in addition to its use as an emblem of neutrality is also the emblem of the Swiss Republic, there might well be substituted an emblem which is not the emblem of a foreign country, and the caduceus was selected, as the emblem which for many ages has served to indicate the noncombatant. ”

—William K Emerson, Encyclopedia of United States Army Insignia and Uniforms
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caduceus_as_a_symbol_of_medicine#Adoption_by_the_US_military

IainB · « **Reply #48 on:** September 21, 2011, 05:57 AM »

@app103: Thankyou. That's a relief! At least someone already had the guts to face up and tell them that they are using the "wrong" emblem. Though it seems that it may be the "right" emblem because it is the wrong one.
I think learning assembler was easier than this.
Maybe we should try to avoid thinking of those medical corps' emblems as necessarily related to medicine/healing then.
I shall have to go and readjust my whole world-view now.
My brain hurts. This is highly perturbing.
What did I tell you? This sort of confusion could only happen in America.

cmpm · « **Reply #49 on:** September 21, 2011, 06:55 AM »

It has been used to represent medical or mythology or commerce or neutrality.
But I do not see it or understand it in any of those ways.
I look further back into it and see the wings as the wings of a dove,
representing spirit.
The rod representing Christ, and the serpents, male and female.
As a whole, the human soul.

Mythology is an offshoot of truths and lies.
So I look beyond that, although it does offer insight.
Being based on other things, the mythological view is not the original intent.
But points to some definite facts that they are based on.

The two serpents representing duality in some explanations.
Although to me, it says the two opposing forces are intertwined.

Anyway, that's what I understand at this time.
I won't argue with other opinions or perspectives.
I respect them, even if I don't agree.

I said you may recognize it as a symbol of the medical profession.
That doesn't mean I agree that it is. Just to be clear on what I said.
Different people in history have made it to be that, by their own decisions.
As I'm sure anyone that looked it up may have seen.
It was used in the armed forces of USA for the medical corps, for a while,
as well as other choices made concerning this symbol.